Given that there is a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who can show actual evidence in a controlled setting for paranormal events, and given that *nobody* has been able to show such under those controlled circumstances, the default position is that paranormal phenomena do not exist.
As others have pointed out, most phenomena labelled as paranormal would e known physical laws. While it is certainly *possible* that such violations occur, it requires an extreme amount of repeatable evidence under controlled circumstances to overturn our understanding (because that's how we arrived at our understanding).
So, it is my viewpoint that many people who believe in paranormal phenomena are biased in favour of such and also do not look at the evidence, requiring it to be both definitive and done in a controlled setting. They leap to conclusions rather than really look at the strength of the evidence and alternative explanations.
At this point, the tests of paranormal phenomena have been extensive enough that anyone claiming such events is under a burden similar to someone proposing a perpetual motion machine. There are good reasons to not even consider either proposal unless the evidence is absolutely conclusive and it should be enough to convince even determined skeptics under controlled conditions.
As others have pointed out, most phenomena labelled as paranormal would e known physical laws. While it is certainly *possible* that such violations occur, it requires an extreme amount of repeatable evidence under controlled circumstances to overturn our understanding (because that's how we arrived at our understanding).
So, it is my viewpoint that many people who believe in paranormal phenomena are biased in favour of such and also do not look at the evidence, requiring it to be both definitive and done in a controlled setting. They leap to conclusions rather than really look at the strength of the evidence and alternative explanations.
At this point, the tests of paranormal phenomena have been extensive enough that anyone claiming such events is under a burden similar to someone proposing a perpetual motion machine. There are good reasons to not even consider either proposal unless the evidence is absolutely conclusive and it should be enough to convince even determined skeptics under controlled conditions.
